Message boards :
Politics :
Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 . . . 54 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19048 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
Green is the new Greed You only say that, because then, it covers your own greed. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19048 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
When someone, without proof, makes a statement like that, it is always to cover the own failings. That is not being nasty that is just being truthful. So if you cannot stand the heat. get out of the kitchen. |
KLiK Send message Joined: 31 Mar 14 Posts: 1304 Credit: 22,994,597 RAC: 60 |
Green is the new Greed maybe you can elaborate more on that...didn't quite get it! :/ non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU |
Darth Beaver Send message Joined: 20 Aug 99 Posts: 6728 Credit: 21,443,075 RAC: 3 |
Green is big oil. Wake up! maybe you can elaborate more on that...didn't quite get it! :/ There's big money in saying your green The new Black Gold , just say your green stuff the emissions |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19048 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
ExxonMobil under investigation for allegedly misleading the public about climate change ExxonMobil, the largest publicly traded oil company in the world, is under investigation over whether it misled the public and its investors over the impact of its business on climate change. |
KLiK Send message Joined: 31 Mar 14 Posts: 1304 Credit: 22,994,597 RAC: 60 |
Green is big oil. Wake up! there's no way any ICE are a "green stuff"...one might be a greener, than the other one...but not green! ;) why? they are all pollutants...any other advertising is prohibited in EU! ;) ExxonMobil under investigation for allegedly misleading the public about climate change that DA has some balls...given how some people involved with oil companies disappeared... ;) non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19048 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
WMO - Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Hit Yet Another Record “Every year we report a new record in greenhouse gas concentrations,†said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “Every year we say that time is running out. We have to act NOW to slash greenhouse gas emissions if we are to have a chance to keep the increase in temperatures to manageable levels.†|
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
As (Last I checked) The USA was the LARGEST contributor to CO2 emissions, this is simply not true. As we go greener and rely on less fossil fuel, more renewable the more others will follow. And we are far from leading THAT pack. China will eventually follow. They are still building infrastructure. They will follow because it is a more advanced path, and it will make economic sense. You can not lead from the back of the pack. Time to step it up. Janice |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19048 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
As (Last I checked) The USA was the LARGEST contributor to CO2 Maybe you should read this report from the congressional research service (2014) https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41748.pdf China surpassed the United States in 2010 with over 41 GW of installed wind power capacity. Notably, however, approximately 18% of that capacity was not yet connected to the power grid in 2013. |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
The wishful thinking might be to think we could move forward without the whine of "But how come THEY don't have to". Never mind them, they will come along or be left alone at the store. Janice |
KLiK Send message Joined: 31 Mar 14 Posts: 1304 Credit: 22,994,597 RAC: 60 |
|
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
Um.. The future is not going to be "Burn more fossil fuels". That is turning into the past. Janice |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
As (Last I checked) The USA was the LARGEST contributor to CO2 soft^spirit, Uhh.... I believe you are mistaken on that statement. In 2013, the USA emitted 5,297,581.2 kilotons of CO2. In 2013, China emitted 10,281,178.02 kilotons of CO2, almost twice the emissions of the USA in that year. In 2005, per that data set, China and the USA were roughly at parity, with the USA still having a slight lead. If I remember correctly, China took the lead in CO2 emissions in 2006. Source: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts1990-2013&sort=des9 Note: Note that these timeseries report country-specific CO2 emission totals of fossil fuel use and industrial processes (cement production, carbonate use of limestone and dolomite, non-energy use of fuels and other combustion). Excluded are: short-cycle biomass burning (such as agricultural waste burning) and large-scale biomass burning (such as forest fires). |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
Per Capita we would still lead by far. The problem is that is the WORST. Lower numbers = better. Janice |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Per Capita we would still lead by far. The problem is that is the WORST. Per Capita numbers are totally meaningless in this case. Only total emissions matter. The climate does not change because *some* people put out 'too much' CO2 and others don't. The climate is changing for quite a number of reasons, some anthropogenic, some not. Some are GHG related, some aren't. Not all of the reasons that are both anthropogenic and GHG related involve CO2. Not all sources of anthropogenic CO2 emissions involve fossil fuel use and/or industrial processes. Don't believe me in this? Go study the IPCC reports. To help you in your study, here is a link to the IPCC WG3 AR5 report's 'Summary for policymakers. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf Pay special attention to figure SPM.2 on page 9. AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use) accounts for 26% of GHG total emissions. I have also previously linked a paper on the subject in http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=74943&postid=1578261 Specifically to http://anr.sagepub.com/content/1/2/147. Read it, if you wish (sadly, it is behind a paywall, but the abstract is there). Does pre-industrial warming double the anthropogenic total? 'The PROBLEM' is that there are way too d**n many people on the planet, and almost everything we do farks with the climate in one way or another. Yes, putting up a solar panel or a wind-turbine is a nice, 'feel-good' gesture. But, in the long run they don't matter a tinker's d**n. Essentially, did you EAT today? If so, then YOU are part of the problem. The Global Population just prior to the Agricultural Revolution was about 3,000,000. The Global Population at the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1760 was about 800,000,000. The Global Population today is about 7,284,981,000. See the problem? |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30638 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Only total emissions matter. And China just got rid of the one child policy! We need that policy on a world wide basis. Yes, it will really screw up the capitalists, but not doing it will be much worse for them in the long run. |
KLiK Send message Joined: 31 Mar 14 Posts: 1304 Credit: 22,994,597 RAC: 60 |
Um.. The future is not going to be "Burn more fossil fuels". That is turning into the past. not unless some Ice age is about to arrive...but that also will be far more better to heat up plant with extra solar mirrors in GSO than using fosile fuels! ;) non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11361 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
What proposals are there to quickly reduce our population by 25%, 50%, 75%, to preserve our planet for the remaining Humans? They are working on that in the mid east. |
KLiK Send message Joined: 31 Mar 14 Posts: 1304 Credit: 22,994,597 RAC: 60 |
Um.. The future is not going to be "Burn more fossil fuels". That is turning into the past. spoken like a true Rothchild or Rockefeller puppet! ;) we have enough for a 10 billion people (in 2012)...it's the uneven distribution that we have hunger in the World: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html ;) non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU |
janneseti Send message Joined: 14 Oct 09 Posts: 14106 Credit: 655,366 RAC: 0 |
We waste a LOT of food today. Stop doing that and the future problem is gone for decades. Every year, consumers in industrialized countries waste almost as much food as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (222 million vs. 230 million tons) The amount of food lost and wasted every year is equal to more than half of the world’s annual cereals crops (2.3 billion tons in 2009/10) Acrigulture also emits a lot of CO2 so the sooner we stop wasting food the better. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.